EQ RC Blue

History

Recent Comments

On here, you don't have to bother reading the columns, just assume they say that the last thing that happened is the next thing that'll happen. And while you don't have to be a former basketball star to write about hoops, reading Brian and Ace talk about basketball makes me wonder if they can dribble a basketball for more than ten seconds without tripping.

3. Interestingly, I went back to look at the play-by-play for the 2nd TD drive, and Michigan also converted a 2nd and 20 by running on 2nd down! Houma got 7 yards, leaving 3rd and 13, which they convereted on a 19-year (i.e., less than 20-yard) scramble. So not only can it make sense, but Harbaugh had already showed that he would run on that exact down, 2nd and 20. Also, I don't have time to check exactly what they did to convert when they had fifteen yards to go, but are you saying none of those involved runs?

1. My numbers are arbitary, but they are also illustrative of the point that saying TDs are better than FGs is not the end of the discussion. As to your numbers, Smith, who was in the game, averaged almost 5 yards per carry, and the numbers are skewed by the three runs for no yards at the end of regulation. And running plays are less likely to get 0 or negative yards than passing plays even if the overall average is less, which is crucial when you are on the fringe of FG range.

2. Running on 2nd down does not give up any possibility of a touchdown. See point 1. And is 26-24 at the end of the 3rd (including a punt return TD) really a shootout?

4. Did Indiana play a different defense on that down than they did at other times? And...

5. ... he did bite a little bit, which can make a big difference.

Anyway, I'm not saying that running is obviously the right thing to do, or that the call was necessarily genius, but I don't think it was so ludicrous or crazy as to draw bafflement.

...you're being late was worse, and, more importantly, it was probably too tight a window. I dont' think he needed to throw it away though. He still had time and had Smith coming open on a checkdown that looks like it could've gained significant yardage.

1. Of course a TD is more desirable than a FG. But if one play call will give you a 10% chance of a TD while another will give you a 90% chance of a FG down two late in the third, which is better? And it's not like a run eliminates getting a TD in Michigan's situation. Remember, a sack can take you out of FG range altogether.

2. Harbaugh has shown the inclination to be aggressive, but also to be smart. The question I'm posing is whether it was the smart play. And other coaches take field goal position into account in long yardage situations in opposing territory.

3. How many 2nd and 20s did Michigan convert on Saturday? How many of their 46 passes went for more than 20 yards. Again, even getting some yards on 2nd helds your FG position and increases your odds of converting on 3rd down.

4. I think this is covered.

5. According to Space Coyote above, the "guy that made the INT even bit down on the play and was frozen for a little bit." So does that mean it was the right play call? Maybe Jake just made a late or bad throw...

You assume the defense expects pass, but why? In that time of the game in that down situation, a FG is a desireable outcome. Running twice and gaining 8 or 10 yards total dramatically increases the chances of a successful field goal. Opposing coaches and players could and probably should take the threat of a running play seriously. Lining up as Michigan did increses the odds they will.

You assume it's an obvious throwing down. Gaining yards short of the first down is a huge benefit because of the increased probability of field goal success. Running twice and gaining 8 yards total could be a perfectly good outcome. The other coaches (and even players) might know this and take the threat of a running play seriously.

Gloating about publicly humiliating MIchigan undergrads? Threatening MIchigan undergrads who have different ideas than you with sabotaging their career opportunities? This is not only abusive, it's a classic display of hubris.

The result was a good one - an extra hit on the QB (and perhaps some added momentum for the defense, which pretty much owned the second half). I thought it was a bad idea, but it is interesting that with the actual result having been positive, and the chances of a 60+yard touchdown hail mary quite low, there's still so much anger.

(Also, a problem with calling the TO earlier is that PSU could still go for it on 4th and 1 and have more downs. And even if you get the ball on your own 30 or lower with 15 seconds left, it's no great thing. It seemed to me an attempt to get a punt block/return, thinking that PSU would see the probability of getting their own score pretty low and would rather punt it away, even out of bounds, to avoid a pick or a Hackenburg sack. Like I said, I didn't love it, probably not the right move, but it's the same aggression that was once lauded around these parts and, to me, the whole episode is more revealing of the anger and lack of composure around here than on the sidelines.)

This is likely not about getting cheap home games, but a clear scheduling preference by Beilien and co. You have a young team, you want some opportunities to build confidence, try different things in game settings, etc. While the overall RPI might take a small hit, playing teams in the 190s vs the 290s doesn't affect how many top 50 or top 100 RPI wins you have. And with the B1G being so good, the end of year RPI is always high if you do well. The marginal difference in overall RPI might not make the increased chance of losing one of those games worth it if you're trying to game it out. But it seems to me it's just a clear choice by the coaching staff: in the nonconf they want (1) big-time games and (2) games the team is going to win by 20 pts, and that's about it.

Beilein is considered a master of late-game/out-of-time plays. ESPN's Fraschilla tweeted last night about JB being a maestro after the play for GRIII. Dakich has praised this about JB too. And the stats suggest that JB and Michigan have been the best in the B1G the past couple of years in out-of-timeout situations.

A way to beat that type of defense is with big passing plays. These plays were there for the taking. That first pass on the first drive should have been a touchdown. On the third drive we get this: DG "can't find Funchess wide, wide open on a circle route for the first down and instead takes off." On the fourth drive we get this: "Funchess runs a great route that gets separation; Michigan protects it; Gardner chucks it wide."

I'm not blaming DG and excusing the coaches. It's the coaches job to get the QB ready to execute the gameplan. And to have linemen and RBs who can pass protect. But the "scheme" actually had pretty wide open TDs or close to it on a whole bunch of drives, including the first few. That's not a bad scheme.

Richrod had 28 yards total rushing his second year @MSU, but people go crazy for his scheme.

...without sufficient data. As Sherlock Holmes will you tell you old chap, "it is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theores, instead of theories to suit facts."

This could be true, but these are the kinds of rumors I don't put much stock in. First, it's a rumor of what other players say Booker said. That's a game of telephone, that is. And players often have no idea what exactly is going on -- that one kid was sure that Grantham was following him to Cincinnati and then the Bearcats were out of the picture a couple days later. Meanwhile, even Ulis publicly said that Booker hasn't told him anything although they've talked about playing together, and Booker seems to have been careful not to say anything publcly in advance of his Missouri trip.

All that said, I'd certainly rather have the rumor be that he's telling people he's going to UM, and thanks for the info.

Not counting him because he was an early commit makes no sense. Hatch was originally a 2013 guy so we can exclude him in discussing 2014.

Here's another way to think about it:

Early offers/high interest:

Doyle - commit

Chatman - commit

Looney - miss

Diop - miss

Tate - miss

Bluiett - miss

Booker - ?

Edwards - partiall miss?

Late interest:

Blackmon - ?

Wilson - ?

Devin Robinson? - miss

Grantham - miss

By my count, we're 2 out of 6 so far on early offers/high interest. That strikes me as very good considering how high these guys were rated and that none of them were from Michigan. Remember, Doyle reportedly had OSU, Purdue, Notre Dame, and Miami offers. You can't get every high-rated guy you go after, and it's very hard to come in late on high-rated guys who've had people recruiting them for ages. The final grade will depend on getting one of Booker/Blackmon (or I guess Bluiett or Bolden maybe), but so far they've done very well after two pretty exceptional years. I'd say they have a good recruiting strategy.

Maybe Jalen Brunson? Although that's based on zilch other than no 2014 guys seems to fit and good-but-no-insider vibes on his recruitment. After all, his dad was an NBA player -- those guys tend to mesh with our staff. Plus, Illinois got a top 2014 PG and they were thought to be our major competition. Just to add total internet speculation to unverified speculation, though I hope it's all true.

Blackmon and Booker both have Kentucky offers. If Kentucky was really the first choice for both, one would jump on it. There may be some interplay between Blackmon, Booker, and Oubre, but my guess is it's much less simple than how Brian depicts it. After McGary, Irvin, Chatman, etc., the evidence shows that UM has a good shot at the prospects they're in on seriously no matter who else is there too.

...there's also been some revisionist history the other way. In his first game, Trey went 1-7 against Ferris State with 0 assists. He had 7 assists and 6 TOs in his first 3 games. Over the course of the year, his asst/TO ratio was 1.66 and he shot just under 35% from 3. He was bad against Ohio St. in the B1G tourney and pretty poor against Ohio in the NCAA tourney. If he'd left after 1 year, he might not have been drafted at all (and was certainly unlikely to be a 1st rounder).

Don't get me wrong, he was great for a freshman his 1st year and well-above his ranking. But he improved greatly from how he came in, a testament to his hard work, the coaching staff, and his teammates. Walton might or might not be better at the same stage, but it's not a crazy statement.

OSU won the B1G tourney this year. For the 2nd time in those 3 years (the other was a finals loss to MSU). Win total is affected by the B1G tourney too, for better and for worse. Overall, success is (perhaps unfairly) measured in large part by NCAA tourney success, so it might be underweighted by looking at win total (vs, say, the nonconference schedule). But the point is taken that overall wins is only one measurement.

Quick quiz: who leads the B1G in overall hoops wins the past three years:

Answer: OSU, by a country mile, with 94 (including a final four run, an elite 8 run, and a tip to the sweet sixteen).

In second place we have our own UM with 76 (and a run to the finals). MSU is just behind us in 3rd with 75 (topping out with 2 Sweet 16 appearances), with Wiscy next at 74. Obviously strength of nonconference schedule has something to do with all of this, but OSU's case over the last 3 years is head and shoulders above anyone else's.

OSU has also been doing pretty will on the recruiting trail - Rivals has them with 5 4-stars and 2 5-stars coming in in the 2013-15 classes.

I understand why MSU gets props from the national media, but OSU has been the best B1G program over the last little while. Obviously UM has been doing pretty well the last little bit too and is trending upward. With IU on the rise, Illinois probably improving, MD coming in, MSU and Wiscy hard to discount, the B1G is really going to be tough the next few years.

It is not true that Michigan "never, ever posts guys up" -- the coaches tried it with Horford and McGary at times. And they will certainly do it more this year. Look for Mitch in particular to get more opportunities with the ball in the high post and the low block. How large a part of the offense it becomes and whether it could emerge as a late-game go-to set are the questions.